Red Sox/MLB 2013 Thread Part XXII-Opening Day!

Kids under 14 will eat free — well, before the third inning, provided they go to specially designated concession stands to pick up their Fenway Frank, Goldfish, and carton of juice. Around the park, buy one hot dog, get a second for free. Hot chocolate will be sold for half-price. And beer, which flows from the Fenway taps like liquid gold and costs almost as much, will be sold for $5 per 12-ounce cup, down from between $7.50-$8.50.

due to the fact that I'm an idiot and didn't adjust my autodraft settings as I was 15 minutes late to my draft, I paid 14.00 for Large Father. It sounds like the recovery from the achilles tendon is progressing slower than thought?

Considering Ortiz is starting on the DL, as is Drew most likely, that lineup makes the most sense. I don't love Victorino 2nd, but he's a better option than JBJ there right now IMO. I keep flip flopping on Gomes and Salty as well.

Considering Ortiz is starting on the DL, as is Drew most likely, that lineup makes the most sense. I don't love Victorino 2nd, but he's a better option than JBJ there right now IMO. I keep flip flopping on Gomes and Salty as well.

Not really. It's not like it's an all or nothing scenario. They can send him down to Pawtucket any time after Ortiz comes back or any time he goes in a slump if they want. There are other ways to get that extra year of service if that's what they want.

Uh, because you can still send him down over the next 6 years if he struggles and not impact that control for 2019?

Quote:

If Bradley Jr. was to be called up prior to April 12 and remain in the major leagues for the next six seasons without spending fewer than 20 days in the minors he would become a free agent after 2018 instead of 2019.

Besides that, when have the Sox let any of their players they viewed as core guys even get to free agency? They locked up pretty much everyone to long term extensions years before they got to that point. So they could easily do that for JBJ if he becomes what they expect him to be.

Uh, because you can still send him down over the next 6 years if he struggles and not impact that control for 2019?

Besides that, when have the Sox let any of their players they viewed as core guys even get to free agency? They locked up pretty much everyone to long term extensions years before they got to that point. So they could easily do that for JBJ if he becomes what they expect him to be.

Because if he is actually good, which is the hope right, that is why this is even a debate, that will never happen.

If he is so good that he never goes back to the minor leagues that extra year will be even more valuable.

I liked having Papelbon one more year, did you? I think it is a good thing to have good players on good salaries. WEIRD I KNOW.

Because if he is actually good, which is the hope right, that is why this is even a debate, that will never happen.

If he is so good that he never goes back to the minor leagues that extra year will be even more valuable.

I liked having Papelbon one more year, did you? I think it is a good thing to have good players on good salaries. WEIRD I KNOW.

Sure, but that only matters if you CAN'T PAY THE GUY. The Sox have plenty of money to spend, especially since they offloaded about $400 trillion dollars to the freaking Dodgers last year, remember? If they're worried about losing control of a player 7 years from now, things are going to be pretty ****ing bleak in these parts. For them to even consider this is disgusting. They can't cry poor because this isn't the Pirates or Tampa Bay, FFS...

It's funny Mike...I held this EXACT same opinion until last week. Literally the exact same feeling. Then I started coming around to the idea that I'm a fan. If he's clearly your hottest hitter as of today, how can you justify putting a lesser team on the field for 9 crucial games?

It seems the side defending demoting him is trying to minimize the importance of 10 games. But they are simultaneously exaggerating the likelihood that that year of control matters much in the long run, if at all.

Sure, but that only matters if you CAN'T PAY THE GUY. The Sox have plenty of money to spend, especially since they offloaded about $400 trillion dollars to the freaking Dodgers last year, remember? If they're worried about losing control of a player 7 years from now, things are going to be pretty ****ing bleak in these parts. For them to even consider this is disgusting. They can't cry poor because this isn't the Pirates or Tampa Bay, FFS...

They have a budget. They have a limit. They should be worried about 7 years from now. That is what smart teams do.

So why not be smart for 10 games, and then you never ever have to worry about it, tomorrow or in seven years.

(It also makes Bradley more appealing as an asset in case they ever want to trade him.)

It's funny Mike...I held this EXACT same opinion until last week. Literally the exact same feeling. Then I started coming around to the idea that I'm a fan. If he's clearly your hottest hitter as of today, how can you justify putting a lesser team on the field for 9 crucial games?

It seems the side defending demoting him is trying to minimize the importance of 10 games. But they are simultaneously exaggerating the likelihood that that year of control matters much in the long run, if at all.

10 games versus 162 games at a better number for the team.

Seems easy, especially when you think how little one player can really impact 10 games.

JB Jr could play at an historic level next year, 40+ Win Shares, and over 10 games that would be worth, what? 2 wins?

Okay, so that historic level is unlikely.

At an MVP level, 30 Win Shares, that is 1-2 wins over 10 games?

Okay, how about just at an All Star Level, 20 Win Shares, 1 win over 10 games?

Now, that makes it sound like he would do that in a vacuum, and that whoever replaces him for those 10 games isn't bringing an value. Unlikely.

So maybe he makes the difference of 1 win for those 10 games, and you give up an entire year of control? That is losing the forest in the trees.

Two thoughts:

1. This premise assumes the "year of control" actually means anything. For this to be true, he needs to a) be a player they badly want to keep, b) be a player intent on testing free agency (and yeah I know Boras this and that), c) he needs to be a player costly enough to cause a contract issue. Altogether I think these are unlikely. Possible, but still, that lost year of control just means he costs you a bit more...so what? Which brings me to my second point...

2. Given how this franchise stands in this city right now, the start they had last year and the general feeling folks have for them putting business over baseball, I think this decision was already made. He's making this team. This ownership group is not going to hold this kid back to possibly save a few bucks at the risk of fielding a lesser team on Day 1. They're way too sensitive to bad PR.

Seems easy, especially when you think how little one player can really impact 10 games.

When those 10 games are the first 10 games of the year, after two depressing seasons, against two teams you hope to battle for the division and your bitter rival, it's not just 10 games. Not even close.